Harvey Hudson v. United States

539 F. App'x 310

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6106

HARVEY J. HUDSON, Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-hc-02161-D)

Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harvey J. Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Harvey J. Hudson, a District of Columbia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2241, 2254 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“We conclude that a court of the District [of Columbia] is a state court for the purpose of [§ 2253(c)].”). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hudson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

3

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We grant Hudson in forma pauperis status. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED